4.6 Article

Mutational Analysis in Pediatric Thyroid Cancer and Correlations with Age, Ethnicity, and Clinical Presentation

期刊

THYROID
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 227-234

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2015.0401

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) incidence in pediatrics is rising, most being papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). The objective of the study was to assess the prevalence of different mutations in pediatric WDTC and correlate the genotype with the clinical phenotype. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study. Thyroid tissue blocks from 42 consecutive pediatric WDTC patients who underwent thyroidectomy between 2001 and 2013 were analyzed at Quest Diagnostics for BRAF(V600E), RAS mutations (N,K,H), and RET/PTC and PAX8/PPAR rearrangements, using validated molecular methods. Thyroid carcinomas included PTC, follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC), and follicular variant of PTC (FVPTC). Results: Thirty-nine samples (29 females) were genotyped. The mean age at diagnosis was 14.7 years (range 7.9-18.4 years), and most were Hispanic (56.4%) or Caucasian (35.9%). The mean follow-up period was 2.9 years. Mutations were noted in 21/39 (53.8%), with both BRAF(V600E) (n=9), and RET/PTC (n=6) detected only in PTC. Mutations were detected in 2/5 FTC (PAX8/PPAR and NRAS) and 3/6 FVPTC cases (PAX8/PPAR). Of 28 PTC patients, 57.1% had mutations: 32.1% with BRAF(V600E), 21.4% with RET/PTC, and 3.6% with NRAS. Of patients with BRAF(V600E), 77.8% were Hispanic and 88.9% were >15 years, while all RET/PTC-positive patients were 15 years (p=0.003). Tumor size, lymph node involvement, and distant metastasis at diagnosis (or soon after I-131 ablation) did not vary significantly based on the mutation. Conclusions:BRAF(V600E) was the most common mutation, especially in older and Hispanic adolescents. A larger, ethnically diverse pediatric cohort followed long term will enable the genotypic variability, clinical presentation, and response to therapy to be better assessed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据